Informal Market Research Questions

[JamesDixon]

Howdy folks,

I have just a couple of questions for now, but will add more as time goes by.

1. Do you prefer zero to hero level based paradigm or competent to very competent points based system?

2. What are your thoughts about using a point buy system that character creation points are broken up and spent as follows: Racial package, Background (Culture)+additional points for customization, and profession/class archetype+a few points to customize?

 

[pippin]

1. Hmmm, I think that approach alone wouldn't mean anything if you don't have a good encounter design. There will be a contrast between the zero to hero/competent to very competent narratives and the quality of the encounters if you're making me fight thugs and goblins.

2. The first one sounds better to me. Race and background are welcome factors during charcter creation, for me it feels more like an RPG this way. The professions could be included in-game if you add some sort of base/stronghold system, where leaving this or that character in this or that job would modify the possible outcome.

 

[Jimmious]

1. I will expand on the previous comment from pippin and say that it completely depends on the context. Not only encounters(which is though an important part) but also story and character progression as well as loot spread can make both interesting or boring/tedious.

2. Doesn't sound bad but actual numbers would make it easier to see if its gonna really work or not

 

[JamesDixon]

1. Hmmm, I think that approach alone wouldn't mean anything if you don't have a good encounter design. There will be a contrast between the zero to hero/competent to very competent narratives and the quality of the encounters if you're making me fight thugs and goblins.

2. The first one sounds better to me. Race and background are welcome factors during charcter creation, for me it feels more like an RPG this way. The professions could be included in-game if you add some sort of base/stronghold system, where leaving this or that character in this or that job would modify the possible outcome.

1. The difference is that you're not fighting rats, slimes, etc... at the very beginning, but other races and possibly some lower versions of like elementals.

Thank you for the valuable input.

 

[JamesDixon]

1. I will expand on the previous comment from pippin and say that it completely depends on the context. Not only encounters(which is though an important part) but also story and character progression as well as loot spread can make both interesting or boring/tedious.

2. Doesn't sound bad but actual numbers would make it easier to see if its gonna really work or not

Well instead of spending x amount of levels doing filler quests you can actually start the main quest and face opposition that is equally competent to the party.

2. I'll be willing to share them once we have them. For now, I'm gauging interesting to see if people want this game to follow 30+ years of level based or do something entirely new which is point based competent to very competent. This will affect how skills and combats are resolved with either a bell curve distribution or a linear line distribution. Bell Curve gives a more you have successfully completed the skill check vs. Linear Line that is extremely swingy on both extremes due to each number having exactly the same percentage chance of showing up regardless of modifiers.

 

[Whiran]

1. The difference is that you're not fighting rats, slimes, etc... at the very beginning, but other races and possibly some lower versions of like elementals.

Thank you for the valuable input.

To me, there is no difference in what you are suggesting.

In the case of rats and slimes they are low level creatures that one typically fights when low level.

In the other case you have low level creatures that one would fight at low level.

If you swap out the graphics and animations you have an identical situation in terms of mechanics.

What matters is the context and the story.

To address your second question about point buy - I'd rather have the option for both. I typically customize all my characters to the fullest extent that customization is available. If I can select individual skills I will do so. If I can only pick "skill packages" then I will do so. However, I'd rather have the ability to customize my own character in an RPG.

 

[JarlFrank]

Zero to hero is boring in comparison to semi-competent to very competent, because at low levels the combat is way too luck dependent (one crit and you lose ALL your HP, lol sorry dude you're dead) and at high levels it is way too attrition-dependent and ridiculous (use a 9th lvl spell in EVERY combat because you have like 5 9th lvl slots). Mid level is where the real fun is at.

 

[Immortal]

As long as progression is visible and happening and has a clear affect on your ability to over come challenges, I don't think it matters where you start.

Nobody likes getting their ass handed to them by a Tavern_Rat_B though.

 

[Excidium II]

1. Do you prefer zero to hero level based paradigm or competent to very competent points based system?

The latter. Specially for CRPGs, where zero to hero progression is seriously overdone.

2. What are your thoughts about using a point buy system that character creation points are broken up and spent as follows: Racial package, Background (Culture)+additional points for customization, and profession/class archetype+a few points to customize?

I think more room for customization is always fun, specially if weird builds are actually viable.

 

[Infinitron]

One reason for the prevalence of "Zero to Hero" is that CRPG enemies are often incapable of providing serious challenge to anybody who isn't a zero. Ask yourself how challenging and dynamic you want to/can make your game's enemies, then base your curve on that.

 

[Mustawd]

1. Doesn't make a difference to me as long as difficulty curve is designed well.

2. Sounds interesting, but hard to say without really seeing how it'd work. Can you flesh it out a bit more?

 

[The Fish]

1. I prefer a system in which you get progressively shitter and weaker.

2. That could mean anything.

 

[JamesDixon]

1. Doesn't make a difference to me as long as difficulty curve is designed well.

2. Sounds interesting, but hard to say without really seeing how it'd work. Can you flesh it out a bit more?

To give an example of character creation, I'll use Fantasy Hero since it's what I know.

Player decides that he wants to have his character be an Elf, so he picks the Elf package.

Cost Ability
4 |+2 DEX
2 |+2 INT
5 |+1 AV *Attack Value (To Hit)
5 |+1 DV *Defensive Value
4 |Elven Swiftness: Running +4m
2 |Elven Eyes: +1 Sight Group PER
Total Cost Of Template Abilities: 22

Due to the cheapness of the package we'll give the player another 18 points to customize the stats which brings the total to 40 points spent.

Now the player decides that the background is a criminal underworld culture, so he picks that. *note that not all the skills may be in the game so the package will look different.

Cost Ability
1 |+1 INT
1 |+1 PRE
6 |6 points’ worth of Skills from the following list:
|Bribery, Conversation, Forgery, Gambling, Lockpicking,
|Persuasion, Security Systems, Charm,
|Sleight Of Hand, Stealth, Streetwise, Trading, any
|Background Skill
2 |WFs (2 points’ worth)
4 |Contacts (4 points’ worth; player’s choice)
Total Cost Of Template Abilities: 14

We can give him an additional 6 points to add more skills or increase the ones he gets from the background he selected. The total for the background will be 20 points.

Next step is picking profession/class archetype, so he decides that he wants an Assassin.

ASSASSIN TEMPLATE
Cost Ability
7 |Stealth (DEX Roll +2)
5 |Streetwise (PRE Roll +1)
5 |WF: Common Melee Weapons, Common
|Missile Weapons, Garrote
20| 20 points’ worth of Skills and Perks from the
|following list:
|Acrobatics, Acting, Breakfall, Bribery,
|Bureaucratics, Climbing, Combat Skill
|Levels, Concealment, Contortionist,
|Cramming, Deduction, Defense
|Maneuver, Disguise, Fast Draw, High
|Society, Interrogation, Lipreading,
|Literacy, Lockpicking, Mimicry, Penalty
|Skill Levels, PS: Brew Poison, Rapid
|Attack, Security Systems, Shadowing,
|Sleight Of Hand, Two-Weapon Fighting,
|Ventriloquism, Weapon Familiarity, any
|Background Skill, Well-Connected,
|/Contact
Total Cost Of Template Abilities: 37

We'll give him 13 points to spend on additional skills or increase the current ones. The Assassin will cost 50 points and bring the total up to 110 points spent.

 

[Neanderthal]

1. Definitely prefer a shallow curve, from competent to elite, and fuck grinding anything.

2. Point buy's fine by me, tends to produce super specialised builds like in GURPS, but I assume you can make a jack of all trades or have party members doing other stuff. Always pisses me off when I make a build like an NPC though, usally start over, though if they've got distinctive and interesting backstories I can tolerate the overlap. Just seems non optimal, which is the strategy gamer in me.

 

[Lhynn]

Understand that zero to hero has narrative relevance, competent to competent has 0 narrative relevance. So you are telling fundamentally different character arcs.
Its always more interesting to do do a zero to hero in an rpg, because if you are competent why the fuck does it even feature character progression.

 

[Mustawd]

because if you are competent why the fuck does it even feature character progression.

I don't think the OP means starting out as a badass. Moreso, a journeyman level versus a complete novice/amateur level. And I disagree that there's no narrative relevance. There might be a variety of reasons why a competent to hero could have a compelling narrative. For example:

Protagonist was a badass back in the day but has left his skills wain. So he has a baseline of competence, but needs clear out the cobwebs.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point on narrative relevance.

 

[Bubbles]

You can also have an experienced hero who's out of their depth when confronted with a novel situation and learns to adapt.

Its always more interesting to do do a zero to hero in an rpg, because if you are competent why the fuck does it even feature character progression.

I think you may have been bitten by the casualization bug.

 

[JamesDixon]

Understand that zero to hero has narrative relevance, competent to competent has 0 narrative relevance. So you are telling fundamentally different character arcs.
Its always more interesting to do do a zero to hero in an rpg, because if you are competent why the fuck does it even feature character progression.

The zero to hero is in reality a false narrative relevance. Who in their right mind would entrust a complete nobody with saving the world? Logically, whoever is in charge will send the best people they have to spare to tackle the problem which leads to the cliche' that only a zero to hero can actually save the world. With a competent to very competent hero, you have a natural and logical hook as to why a ruler or powerful person will call upon them. They're already competent and their exploits prior to the adventure are out there in the world, so powerful people are already aware of them. This presents a real narrative relevance since the party is already skilled in the job.

Constrat that with the zero to hero progression. Would you entrust a novice plumber to install all of the plumbing in your house? No, you would want a competent (journeyman) plumber out there overseeing that the job is completed the right way and to code.

 

[Mustawd]

To give an example of character creation, I'll use Fantasy Hero since it's what I know.

*snip*

From your description, you made it seem like the Elven package is "cheaper". So does that mean some packages require more points than others based on race?

 

[JamesDixon]

From your description, you made it seem like the Elven package is "cheaper". So does that mean some packages require more points than others based on race?

Naw, I left out all the options in my example. Like Woodland Commando which increases Stealth while in the woods etc... Each of the characters will have the same amount of points to spend that are equally split between childhood, culture, and profession/class archetype, so there isn't an issue with balance. Humans will be a blank slate since they have no racial package and are given the same amount of points as an elf, dwarf, etc...

 

[Mustawd]

Yeah, I'm down with that. Chargen is not really my thing, but that sounds interesting.

 

[Lhynn]

The zero to hero is in reality a false narrative relevance. Who in their right mind would entrust a complete nobody with saving the world? Logically, whoever is in charge will send the best people they have to spare to tackle the problem which leads to the cliche' that only a zero to hero can actually save the world. With a competent to very competent hero, you have a natural and logical hook as to why a ruler or powerful person will call upon them. They're already competent and their exploits prior to the adventure are out there in the world, so powerful people are already aware of them. This presents a real narrative relevance since the party is already skilled in the job.

Constrat that with the zero to hero progression. Would you entrust a novice plumber to install all of the plumbing in your house? No, you would want a competent (journeyman) plumber out there overseeing that the job is completed the right way and to code.

So start the storytelling before the world is at an end and give the character or party the chance to get there? or is that too much of a stretch?

I think you may have been bitten by the casualization bug.

I dont even understand where this comes from. All casual titles have you starting with a badass with perfect accuracy, best training in the world, etc. Perhaps you could take your troll mask off and discuss it like you actually give a fuck.

I don't think the OP means starting out as a badass. Moreso, a journeyman level versus a complete novice/amateur level. And I disagree that there's no narrative relevance. There might be a variety of reasons why a competent to hero could have a compelling narrative. For example:
Protagonist was a badass back in the day but has left his skills wain. So he has a baseline of competence, but needs clear out the cobwebs.

Yeah sure, keep telling me what to play. Truth be told theres only so much you can do with an already competent character, hes already seen combat, hes adept at handling difficult situations, his modus operandi is already defined, and it also usually means hes finished developing and all thats left is polishing already acquired skills.

You can also have an experienced hero who's out of their depth when confronted with a novel situation and learns to adapt.

Or you can give him amnesia and pair him up with the best friend of his lover.

Truth is all of these ideas would work best if you actually played said past.

 

[MRY]

A few random thoughts:

(1) Really no RPG goes from "zero to hero." Typically at "zero" level, you start out fighting goblins and giant rats -- if you compare this to fantasy fiction, defeating a large number of goblins or giant rats actually is a heroic feat (see, e.g., Boromir at Parth Galen or Westley in the Fire Swamp). It's just that recently non-video-game fantasy has been so influenced by video games that we're conditioned to thinking that it's no big deal to defeat these foes. So what RPGs are actually depicting is hero to god. I'm not sure this is really germane, but I wanted to flag the point.

(2) Entrusting a quest to someone with no credentials is a totally classic trope that long predates RPGs (see, e.g., Beaumains/Sir Gareth). It may seem "unrealistic" but it's not clear to me why we should even begin to attempt to impose real-world psychological norms on quest-givers in a universe in which magic and gods are real. There is no reason, within the confines of a high fantasy setting, to think that success in some grand endeavor is likely to be determined by veterancy rather than divine intervention or heroic predestination. I suppose if you're only concerned with exterminating the giant rats in your basement, you'd hire the toughest guy in town, but when you're looking for someone to undertake something more daunting, I think you might just go by intuition/omen/divination, and that would be perfectly reasonable. There are also plenty of other ways to justify it, such as various forms of necessity (see, e.g., Questron).

(3) I'm a terrible RPG player and my advice should not be heeded on this topic -- I'm as far from hardcore or grognard as you can get without being a true casual type -- but I've never particularly liked having racial stat bonuses additive on a point-buy system. It's always seemed weird and sort of stupid to me. Like, it kind of sort of makes sense in a rolling system (with no rerolls) because if I really need to have 16 strength to be a fighter and I rolled a 14, then I might select half-orc to get the +2 bonus. But in a point buy system, it always ends up just pushing some stat up even higher: point buy to 18, then pick half-orc to get to 20 or whatever. I think it might be more interesting if you had the race simply go directly to back-end bonuses (like plus to damage with melee weapon or whatever) or to custom skills or something like that, and figure that players will already use the point-buy system to achieve what they want. Or have race set permissible stat ranges (orcs must have 16 to 20 strength and 8 to 11 charisma or whatever). In my opinion either of these courses would diminish the sense that race is just a way of maxing some desired stat at the expense of others and more an archetype to play. But perhaps this is the first step on the road to Sawyerism.

(4) I still think this is all crazily overcomplicated for a Gold Box game, and you should start by focusing on core classes and trying to make them distinctive and rich.

 

[Saduj]

1. I prefer a system in which you get progressively shitter and weaker.

There is already a wildly popular system for that. It is called "living past forty".

Actually wouldn't be a bad premise for a game. Start out as an aging legendary hero. Pick all your skills and perks and bonuses at character creation. And lose them over the course of a campaign that spans years.

The reality is less fun.

 

[Bubbles]

Actually wouldn't be a bad premise for a game. Start out as an aging legendary hero. Pick all your skills and perks and bonuses at character creation. And lose them over the course of a campaign that spans years.

There's a Gamescom report on a game with that premise coming up, though it isn't an RPG.